Buddhism question...

[Doktormartini]

I am sorry if this is a dumb question...but here it is:

Ok so from what I learned in school, Buddhism teaches you that life is suffering. You can ease suffering in one way by reducing desire. So since desire is when you want something...does that mean a buddhist doesn't have a lot of things then? What I'm trying to say is like this: I want a computer, if I don't get one then I'll be kinda mad (just an example, I have one...lol). But to a Buddhist, would they just not want one? So that goes basically with everything that is not needed. You don't need a lot of things you have, you want them...so then does a Buddhist just not have a lot of the things people from other religions have? (computers, tv's, cars...etc). I read in one of my magazines of Chinese Martial Arts that in the Shaolin Temple, all of the monks own for themselves is their clothing (robes) and then a mat or something. Is that ture?

Thank you for your help. Sorry if this is a dumb question...but I am learning =o)

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

I think monastic traditions from many religions follow that trend of the monks/nuns having virtually no posessions, and within the strict confines of the familiar routine, a paring away of desire for many of the things typically craved for by most.

As for Buddhists not having computers, cars, etc. yes many of them live very simple lives. There are also plenty of practising Buddhists who do have those things too, but its a lot harder not to get trapped by 'endless desires'

 

[finalfrogo]

Good to see that you're asking questions. It's ok, don't be afraid of sounding dumb. Only monks take the "no-desire" thing critically. It's true that most monks own nothing more than their clothing and a begging bowl. However, lay Buddhists sill accumulate material wealth. Maybe they just practice such accumulation more lightly?

 

[St0ne]

Buddhism teaches that YOU don't own anything, in fact there is no YOU to own anything but apart from that another reason you don't own anything is because nothing is pernament what you think you own will eigther perish in your lifetime or you will perish and someone else will become the 'owner', I think mostly the point buddhism is getting at is that 'owning' something really serves no purposes as far as being an 'owner' goes.

I'm sure someone will come and correct me now. I hope so.

 

[Karl R]

I am sorry if this is a dumb question...but here it is:

Ask questions. I sometimes train people at work. I always tell them, "I'd rather answer a stupid question, than fix a stupid mistake." The stupidity is in failing to ask the question.

Ok so from what I learned in school, Buddhism teaches you that life is suffering.

That's a fairly narrow interpretation of Dukkha.

Alternate interpretations:
"Life is hard to bear."
"Life is dissatisfactory."
"Life is frustrating."
"Life is hollow."

You can ease suffering in one way by reducing desire. So since desire is when you want something...does that mean a buddhist doesn't have a lot of things then?

I'm not a buddhist, but I've learned something about desires from a few personal bouts with poverty.

I have everything that I need (food, clothing, shelter). I have several things that I don't need (like this computer). I am very aware of the difference between necessities and luxuries.

About 18 months ago, my old computer died. I was a bit strapped for cash (due to other needs which took financial priority). For 6 months I did without a computer. I didn't agonize about my situation. I made the best of it (read more, wrote some, etc.)

Buddhists are encouraged not to desire things they cannot obtain. That's what the teaching means (to me at least).

But to a Buddhist, would they just not want one? So that goes basically with everything that is not needed. You don't need a lot of things you have, you want them...so then does a Buddhist just not have a lot of the things people from other religions have? (computers, tv's, cars...etc).

Try being poor. You won't have most of those things anyway. At that point, it's easier if you adopt a buddhist perspective.

A lot of people buy things that don't make them happy ... or even make them unhappy.

A friend once told me, "The two best days of owning a boat are the day you buy it and the day you sell it."

Owning a boat did not make him happier. If that's the case, why waste money buying it in the first place? Why bother to want it at all?

Sorry if this is a dumb question...but I am learning

Don't apologize. Ask questions. As long as you listen to the answers, nobody's time was wasted. (You don't have to agree with all the answers. Some of them may be wrong.)

 

[Doktormartini]

Thank you all for your answers...they have helped me a lot! Karl, that was cool how you broke it down in parts...thanks again!

 

[Doc]

As has been previously stated by Thich Naht Hanh, "One would be mistaken to say that all life is sufffering". Life has it’s ups and downs. Once again impermanence is stressed here. There are happy moments and then there are sad times. Suffering is often found when we try to make happy moments last forever and sad moments never arise. Both are part of life. We fail to see that both come and go with time. Buddhism does not say that we cannot have desires. That is undoubtedly an extreme for a common lay person. But Buddha suggested that we should not become attached to those desires. For instance, I would very much like to get ‘Nip Tuck Season 1’ on DVD. But I am a penniless, jobless, student. If I get it, that would be cool, but if I don’t then that is okay too. I am not attached to the desire to get it. I will not live in agony if I don’t get the DVD. Of course moderation is a big factor too. There is a big difference between necessity and luxury as others have stated here. Keep asking questions. It will take you farther than you think.

 

[Doktormartini]

Ok I think I get it. So, it is ok to want something, but if you do not get that something, then you shouldn't let it effect your life?

One more easy question that I don't know! So everyone seems to think that fat bellied, bald guy that has huge earings and is smiling is Buddha...and I know that is not true..right? Who is he? Thanks!

 

[Engyo]

Ok I think I get it. So, it is ok to want something, but if you do not get that something, then you shouldn't let it effect your life?

One more easy question that I don't know! So everyone seems to think that fat bellied, bald guy that has huge earings and is smiling is Buddha...and I know that is not true..right? Who is he? Thanks!

Doktormartini & all -

He is known as Happy Hotei; he represents wealth and good fortune. The historical Buddha is most often depicted as sitting or standing, not fat, with a curl of hair between the brows, hands held in one of several mudras, or specific gestures. The different gestures will tell you exactly which Buddha is being represented. Buddhist iconography is complicated enough to have numerous books written about it.......

 

[Doktormartini]

Ok thank you very much!

 

[Doc]

Remember it is not likely Buddha was fat by any means. I mean he almost starved himself to death before he became the "Buddha". Wandering homeless people typically aren't fat whose only means of nutrition is relying on the generosity of others.

To add to my bit about attachment...Lama Surya Das, an American New Yorker who is involved in Tibetan Buddhism, said this to Steven Colbert about non-attachment.

Q: Explain this non-attachment to me. Because that just sounds to me like you can't have things?

A: Non-attachment is not so much about not having things, but that those things don't have us. Non-attachment is about being content with what we have rather than always wanting more.

That sounds like the best description of non-attachment for me. It is simple enough for my tastes. Maybe that is why Buddhism is so attractive to me.

 

[ΩRôghênΩ]

I believe this is good. my religion teaches something similar, except we agree that we should take what we need to survive andthen leave the rest for other individuals. jesus taught sharing our things and leading a life of selflessness and yes, de-tachment from the physical world, to be more in tune with the spiritual,.

 

[Doktormartini]

Ok I have one more question...and don't want to start a new thread!
I read about the Ten Precepts and Eight Precepts and it said things about only eating timely meals, obtain from dancing, listening to music, and watching things (tv), abstain from using garlands and perfume, abstain from using high seats (I don't know what this means, can someone please expalin?), and abstain from accepting gold and silver.

Now these things seem like things most people would never be able to do. Like, a life without music and other entertainment seems like it would be so boring. So, are these practiced by only true Buddhist at the temples? Thank you.

Edit: After thinking a bit I came to the conclusion that from High Seats they mean like abstrain from being the best at something? Am I anywhere close?

 

[Engyo]

One thing to note is that these precepts were primarily developed for monks while in monastery. The high seats thing meant (I believe) indicating relative importance.

The precepts that I agreed to do my best to abide by when I took refuge (formally became a Buddhist) were the Five Precepts for all Buddhists:

Not killing
Not stealing
Not lying
Not engaging in sexual misconduct
Not becoming intoxicated

These I think are the core guidelines for living as a practicing buddhist. If one wishes to become a monk and live in a monastery, the rules become much more rigorous. For most of us, though, it is just guidelines for living a life which creates more positive karmic returns than negative ones.

 

[Doktormartini]

Ok thanks! Would drinking pop (soda) be considered becoming intoxicated? My book says "I undertake to observe the precept to abstain from intoxicating drinks and drugs causing heedlessness." Caffiene is a drug, but it doesn't cause heedlessness. Also, when one is sick, do they take drugs as prescribed by a doctor? Or are they against that?

 

[Krie]

i suppose they think of this wanting in more of a desireable way. like sex... a mok wouldn't be a monk if he did the dirty every night. He finds a new way to channel himself. He seperates the wants from the needs. have you seen a monk eat an oreo???? no b/c that is not what he needs to survive b/c in the end when all of his oreos are gone, he will be suffering b/c he had tasted the sinful goodness of an oreo but knows that he does not need it yet it is like the lays chips... you can't eat just one...

 

[Engyo]

Ok thanks! Would drinking pop (soda) be considered becoming intoxicated? My book says "I undertake to observe the precept to abstain from intoxicating drinks and drugs causing heedlessness." Caffiene is a drug, but it doesn't cause heedlessness. Also, when one is sick, do they take drugs as prescribed by a doctor? Or are they against that?

DoktorMartini -

There are different interpretations of the exact wording of all of the precepts, but this one and the one about sexual misconduct are really the only ones folks argue about (guess why!). Some Buddhists abstain from caffiene as well as alcohol and other intoxicants. Some only abstain from *becoming intoxicated*; i.e. a beer or glass of wine with dinner isn't a problem, but going out and getting hammered is. Interestingly, nicotine is very often not classed as an intoxicant during discussions like this, although some argue it should be.

Regarding medicine prescribed by your doctor, I guess its up to the individual whether pain medication would be proscribed or not. Other than pain medication, medicine is medicine. If you are taking medication prescribed by an ethical medical professional I don't think there is a conflict at all with the precept. I personally want to make sure that no one who needs medication for chemical imbalances and the like feels that their practice should preclude them from taking their medication. I think we can certainly class anti-depressants as a skillful means rather than as intoxicants, but that's my opinion.

 

[Doktormartini]

Thank you so much for your answers...this has been really informative! Sorry if these are stupid questions...but I am learning! Thanks again!

*kowtows*

Another question popped into my mind. Buddhism teaches to not get attached to the material world...but what does it say about getting attached to people> Relationships and sutff...?

Thank you for putting up with my questions!

 

[zasetsu57]

Life is suffering....the translation of dukkha is debated by buddhist and non-buddhists alike....a more accurate interpretation is dis-ease...dis-satisfaction...it covers an almost infinte spectrum of definitions ranging from gross physical suffering as in physical damage and diseases...to more subtle forms such as sadness caused by loss of loved things...failure to gain what we believe will make out lives "better"...The most subtle form of dukkha is called "samkhara-dukkha"...suffering caused by inherent restlessness and the transitory nature of ALL phenomenon. The phrase used to describe this form of suffering is "Sabbe sankhara annica ti" which translates as "All conditioned things are transitory"
We would all love to freeze the river of time and reality at that exact place where all of our innermost desires are fulfilled, but we see that this will never occur...and we suffer....A mothers love will never lead to suffering .....yet she suffers when her baby is no longer a baby...she suffers when her child is injured either in body or heart...everything passes....and this we know in our deepest parts...and the suffering is there...

 

[koan]

The smilling Buddhas sanskrit name is Maitreya. He is a Buddha in training. When he returns to Samsara ( the mundane universe ), he will save all beings. He is presented in many forms, such as that presented by Engyo.